Survivial of Monarchies: Denmark, Part II

Tags

Caroline Matilda of Great Britain, Christiansborg Palace, Copenhagen, Elector of Hanover, George III of Great Britain, Johann Friedrich Struensee, Kingdom of Denmark

With the Danish monarchs having absolute power after 1660 there were times when relying on a minister was essential. This happened during the reign of King Christian VII (1766-1808). The entire reign of Christian VII was taken up with the king’s mental illness. Because of the kings incapacity many ministers vied for power. In the late 1760s, Christian VII came under the influence of his personal physician, the German born Johann Friedrich Struensee. By 1770 Struensee had risen to completely control the king and was the “de facto” regent of the country. In 1772 Struensee introduced progressive reforms that was signed into law by Christian VII. Struensee also had complete control over the Queen Caroline-Matilda. Struensee was very unpopular in Denmark and also in the year he was deposed by a coup in 1772. Although Christian VII remained in power the country was ruled by Christian’s stepmother, Princess Juliane Marie of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, his half-brother Frederik and the Danish politician Ove Høegh-Guldberg.

King Christian VII was married to his first cousin Princess Caroline-Matilda of Great Britain, the brother of King George III of Great Britain, Elector of Hanover. The marriage was doomed from the start. At the age of fifteen, Caroline Matilda left Britain in order to travel to Denmark and marry her cousin, Christian VII of Denmark. The wedding took place on November 8, 1766 at Christiansborg Palace in Copenhagen. Her eldest brother, King George III, was anxious about the marriage, even though he wasn’t fully aware that the bridegroom was mentally ill. Caroline-Matilda was described as vivid and charming and although not considered conventionally pretty she was regarded as attractive. However, her natural and unaffected personality was not popular at the strict Danish court. She was close to her first lady-in-waiting, Louise von Plessen, who regarded the king’s friends as immoral and acted to isolate Caroline-Matilda from her husband. This was not difficult as her husband did not like her. The Danish king was persuaded to consummate the marriage for the sake of the succession, and after a son was born (future Frederik VI), Christian VII turned his interest to courtesan Støvlet-Cathrine, with whom he visited the brothels of Copenhagen. Caroline-Matilda was unhappy in her marriage, neglected and spurned by the king. When Plessen was exiled from court in 1768, she lost her closest confidante, leaving her even more isolated.

In time Queen Caroline-Matlida became friends and eventual lover of the king’s minister, Johann Friedrich Struensee. Since marital relations between Caroline-Matilda and Christian VII had ceased it is very likely that Caroline-Matilda’s daughter, Princess Louise Auguste of Denmark was Johann Friedrich Struensee was the biological daughter even though Christian VII did not deny or contest paternity. Since the population of Denmark was extremely loyal to the royal family the rumor of an affair between the Queen and Struensee was not tolerated. In January of 1772 both Struensee and the queen were arrested. The marriage of Caroline-Matilda and Christian VII was dissolved by divorce in April 1772. After the divorce, Johann Friedrich Struensee and his accomplice Count Enevold Brandt were executed on April 28,1772.

On May 28, 1772, Caroline-Matilda was deported on board a British frigate to Celle, Hanover and was inprisoned at Celle Castle in her brother’s German territory of Hanover. She never saw her children again. In 1774, she became the center of a plot with the intent to make her the regent of Denmark as the guardian of her son, Crown Prince Frederik, instigated by Ernst Schimmelmann with the Englishman Nathaniel Wraxall as a messenger. Wraxall met her many times and she used him as messenger to her brother, whose support she desired. She herself wrote a letter to her brother George III in 1775, in which she asked for his approval for the plan, which she referred to as “this scheme for my son’s happiness.” However, the coup fell apart when Caroline-Matilda died suddenly of scarlet fever at Celle on May 1775 at the age of only 23.

Nest week is the start of Liberal reform in Denmark.

Advertisements

Survival of Monarchies: Denmark

Tags

Carl X Gustav of Sweden, Charles X Gustav of Sweden, Christian IV of Denmark, Constitutional Monarchy, Denmark, Frederick III of Denmark, George of Denmark, Haandfæstning, Hereditary Monarchy, Queen Anne, Sophie Amalie of Brunswick-Lüneburg

We have seen how England/Britain went from a monarchy where the sovereign had considerable power under the Tudors (although not absolute) to the constitutional form it has today. Denmark is another example of a thriving monarchy that once was absolute. Denmark has a long history of monarchy. Even longer than that of the United Kingdom. Denmark also has an interesting history of a monarchy that was once limited then became absolute only to transform again to a limited constitutional monarchy.

We begin our story with Denmark in the year 1660 when King Frederik III of Denmark and Norway began his absolute rule. He had come to the throne in 1648 and was the second son of Christian IV and Anne Catherine of Brandenburg. He had an elder brother, Prince Christian, who was Prince-Elect of Denmark until his death in 1647. For centuries Denmark had been an elective monarchy with the eldest son often designated as Prince Elect. More times than not the eldest son would inherit the throne.

When Christian IV died after a reign of 59 years (longest in Danish history) the Rigsraadet (royal council) was the main power center of Danish politics and had been for centuries. It took the royal council several weeks to finally elect Frederik as King of Denmark and Norway. Upon his election, King Frederik III was forced to sign a Håndfæstning* which attempted to humiliate the king and greatly reduce his powers. For several years in the early part of his reign Denmark was at war with Sweden who was ruled by King Carl X Gustav (1654-1660). The war was ended by the Treaty of Copenhagen in May 1660.

After the war saw a rise in popularity for the king. The traditional loyalty of the Danish middle classes toward the king rose exponentially. Frederik III’s response to his new found popularity was to change the elective monarchy into an absolute hereditary monarchy by the Revolution of 1660. To ensure his status as absolute monarch Frederik III instituted a state of emergency in Denmark. In September of 1660 he gathered the Estates, and played them against one another thus dividing them and weakening them. In doing this he succeeded in gaining support for the hereditary monarchy,  annulled the Haandfæstning and inaugurated the institution of absolute monarchy by decree.

Incidentally, Frederik III was married to Princess Sophie Amalie of Brunswick-Lüneburg and their youngest son was Prince George,  Duke of Cumberland husband of Britain’s Queen Anne (1702-1714)

From 1660-1848 the Kingdom of Denmark was absolute. Next week we will see how the Danish Monarchy became the constitutional monarchy it is today.

*A Haandfæstning (Modern Danish: Håndfæstning & Modern Norwegian: Håndfestning, lit. “Handbinding”) was a document issued by the kings of Denmark from 13th to the 17th century, preceding and during the realm’s personal union with the kingdoms of Sweden and Norway. Following Sweden’s independence, similar documents were also issued by its kings. In many ways it is a Scandinavian parallel to the English Magna Carta.

The haandfæstning was the result of the strength of the power of the nobility. The first Danish king who was forced to sign this kind of charter was King Eric V in 1282. It was used as a regular coronation charter for the first time in 1320. Between 1440 and 1648 it was a normal condition for the recognition of a new king. When absolute monarchy was introduced in 1660 the last haandfæstning was mortified. ~ wikipedia.

Survival of Monarchies: England Part V

Tags

2012. Parliament, Buckingham Palace, King George I of Great Britain, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Parliament, Prime Minister, Queen Victoria, Queen Victoria of Great Britain

On August 1, 1714 Queen Anne died at the age of 42. Her successor, as designated in the Act of Settlement of 1701 was Princess Sophia of Hanover, who was married to Elector Ernst-August of Hanover. However, The Electress Sophia died in June of 1714 before she could take the throne herself. Therefore it was her son, Elector Georg-Ludwig of Hanover, who mounted the throne as King George I of Great Britain. With him we begin to see the monarchy move even more closer to the constitutional form it has taken today.

George I was actually 52^nd in-line to the throne when he succeeded. All those that were ahead of him were of the Catholic faith. George was 54 years old at the time of his accession and he spoke little English. It was during his reign that the power of the crown was further diminished. One way his power was diminished was though the rise of the office of the Prime Minister. The office is not established by any constitution or law but exists only by long-established convention. In other words the office arose over time and out of necessity.

Let me back track a bit. In 1625 under Charles I a Cabinet style government was created with ministers serving the monarch as a council in matters of state. With the accession of George I the power of those in the Cabinet rose as George I had very little interest in governing. Soon, by 1722, Robert Walpole, 1st Earl of Orford was essentially the First Prime Minister under King George I. Even today the office of Prime Minister does not exist Constitutionally, for the any of the Prime Minister’s executive and legislative powers are actually royal prerogatives which are still formally vested in the Sovereign, who remains the Head of State. Those who hold the office of Prime Minister are, in actuality, First Lord of the Treasury, the position they hold as a member of the sovereign’s cabinet.

Prior to 1902 the position was held by a member from the House of Lords, provided that his government could form a majority in the Commons. However, as the power of the aristocracy waned during the 19th century the convention developed that the Prime Minister should always sit in the lower house (House of Commons). During the reign of the first 4 Hanoverian kings the position of Prime Minister could be changed on the whim of the monarch. As time progressed those who were appointed to the office of First Lord of the Treasury, were those whose party had a majority in the lower house.

As we saw last week the Bill of Rights limited the power of the Crown but since then no official law has been instated to further limit the crown is why many of the Sovereign’s prerogative powers are still legally intact but the evolution of the office of Prime Minister has removed the monarch from day-to-day governance, with ministers exercising the royal prerogatives, leaving the monarch in practice with three constitutional rights: to be kept informed, to advise, and to warn.

Under this arrangement Britain might appear to have two chief executives: the Prime Minister and the Monarch. The concept of “the Crown” resolves this apparent paradox. The Crown is considered to be the cabinet which is the state’s authority to govern: to make laws and execute them, impose taxes and collect them, declare war and make peace. Prior to the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 the monarch solely and exclusively wielded the powers of the Crown. As we have seen, Parliament gradually forced monarchs to assume a neutral political position as Parliament has effectively distributed the powers of the Crown and gave its authority to the Prime Minister and Cabinet. During times when the monarchy was near absolute the king was accountable to no one. Today, the Prime Minister and Cabinet, as representing “The Crown,” are accountable for their policies and actions to Parliament, in particular the elected House of Commons.

During the reign of the Hanoverians they often favored one party over another. As often happened when monarch and his heir were at odds, rival courts were established with one party trying to court favor with the monarch while the other party courted favor with the heir. It was under Queen Victoria (1837-1901) that this began to change. Prince Albert, the Prince Consort, was instrumental in steering the Monarch in the direction of neutrality and not favoring one party over the other.

It was along and difficult road but all of these events and evolving traditions helped steer the monarchy through the changing times. Its willingness to adapt has allowed it to remain.

Survival of Monarchies: England Part IV.

Tags

English Bill of Rights, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of Scotland, Mary II of England, Parliament, William III of England

English Bill of Rights

When William III and Mary II were called to the throne by Parliament this forever altered the succession by hereditary right only. The Jacobites that followed the Glorious Revolution today recognizes HRH Prince Franz, The Duke of Bavaria as King Francis II of England and Scotland as the heir general of the Stuart Dynasty. This very small faction will ignore the right of Parliament to designate the succession. That is what happened. With the Glorious Revolution Parliament became the power in the land, supplanting that position once held by the Crown.

By December of that year Parliament passed the historic Bill of Rights on December 16, 1689. Although the Bill of Rights was similar to the Declaration of Right presented by the Convention Parliament to William III and Mary II in March 1689 (or 1688 by Old Style dating), inviting them to become joint sovereigns of England, the Bill of Rights went further and set the limits on the powers of the crown and sets out the rights of Parliament and rules for freedom of speech in Parliament, the requirement for regular elections to Parliament and the right to petition the monarch without fear of retribution.

From Wikipedia here are some basic rights set out by the document:

The Bill of Rights laid out certain basic rights for all Englishmen. The Act stated that there should be:

• No royal interference with the law. Though the sovereign remains the fount of justice, he or she cannot unilaterally establish new courts or act as a judge.
• No taxation by Royal Prerogative. The agreement of the parliament became necessary for the implementation of any new taxes.
• Freedom to petition the monarch without fear of retribution.
• No standing army may be maintained during a time of peace without the consent of parliament.

No royal interference in the freedom of the people to have arms for their own defence as suitable to their class and as allowed by law (simultaneously restoring rights previously taken from Protestants by James II).

No royal interference in the election of members of Parliament

• The freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.
• “grants and promises of fines or forfeitures” before conviction are void.

no excessive bail or “cruel and unusual” punishments may be imposed.

Although the Bill of Rights did limit the Crown the monarchy did not instantly become the Figurehead Constitutional Monarchy that it is today. No, the King and or Queen still had considerable say in the Government although they were not subject to the will of the House of Commons and the House of Lords respectively. As we shall see in the next session Parliament also has contentions within themselves as the powers of the House of Commons grew the more they desired to limit the powers of the hereditary House of Lords.

However, before that happened a crisis in the succession to the Crown happened once again requiring Parliament to pass the The Act of Settlement in 1701. When William III took the throne jointly with his wife Mary II he was bumped up from third-in-line to the throne to share the Crown with his wife who had been first-in-line until the birth of her Catholic half-brother, James, The Prince of Wales in 1688. As we have seen Princess Anne, the sister of Mary II, relinquished her place in the succession. This meant that when Mary II died in 1694 (making the joint rule of William III and Mary II lasting a mere five years) William III stayed on the throne instead of Anne succeeding. Had William re-married and produced heirs they would have come before the claim of Princess Anne. The union of William and Mary was childless. When William died of pneumonia, a complication from a broken collarbone following a fall from his horse, Sorrel, he was succeeded by his cousin/sister-in-law, the Princess Anne who then became Queen.

Queen Anne, as a princess, married Prince George of Denmark and Norway, Duke of Cumberland the younger son of King Frederik III of Denmark and Norway and Sophie Amalie of Brunswick-Lüneburg. Ironically, Prince George was first cousin to King George I of Great Britain, his wife’s eventual successor, as his mother was the sister of Ernest Augustus, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg, later Elector of Hanover (father of King George I). Anne and George had many many pregnancies but only one child, Prince William, Duke of Gloucester, lived beyond infancy. Sadly, Prince William died of either Scarlet Fever or Smallpox at the age of 11 in 1700. At the time it was thought King William III would not remarry and Anne, worn out from all her pregnancies, would not have another child.

The only legitimate heir at the time was the Catholic James, The Prince of Wales. He was approached by members of Parliament to be placed back in the order of succession under the condition that he convert to Protestantism. He refused to do so. This left Parliament with no other choice but to search for another heir. Eventually Parliament settled the succession to the English and Scottish crowns on the Electress Sophia of Hanover (a granddaughter of James VI of Scotland and I of England) and her non-Roman Catholic heirs. The line of Sophia of Hanover was the most junior among the Stuarts, but consisted of dedicated Protestants. Sophia missed being queen by a few weeks and died on June 8, 1714, before the death of Queen Anne on 1 August 1714, at which time Sophia’s son duly became King George I and started the Hanoverian dynasty.

The act played a seminal role in the formation of the Kingdom of Great Britain. England and Scotland which had shared a monarch since 1603, but had remained separately governed countries. The Scottish parliament was more reluctant than the English to abandon the House of Stuart, members of which had been Scottish monarchs long before they became English ones. English pressure on Scotland to accept the Act of Settlement led to a softening of this attitude which paved the way for the parliamentary union of the two countries in 1707.

In this last section dealing with England/Britain we will see the power of the Crown diminish further with the rise of the office of Prime Minister under the Hanoverian Dynasty.

Survival of Monarchies: England Part III

Tags

English Civil War, France, Glorious Revolution, House of Stuart, King James II-VII of England and Scotland, Kings and Queens of England, William III and Mary II, William III of England and Scotland

The Glorious Revolution of 1688 was when Parliament became supreme and limited the power of the Crown. Although the Glorious Revolution did limit the powers of the monarch it would take a few hundred years until the monarchy became the constitutional and symbolized figurehead monarchy we see today. It has been this gradual limiting of the powers of the crown that has allowed the British monarchy to survive, and thrive, to this very day.

The Revolution resolved the struggle between Crown and Parliament and it also helped settle the religious struggles within the country. Basically at its heart it was a revolution that deposed King James II-VII of England and Scotland. In 1679 Parliament wanted to exclude James from the succession due to his Catholicism. To be Catholic in a Protestant England at that time was troublesome even if you were the king. During his reign James did not do what others feared, nor what his predecessor Mary I did, and tried to revive Catholicism and make it the official religion of England. No, James did what his brother Charles II did and promoted religious tolerance. Sadly these enlightened kingly brothers were way ahead of their times. England had little tolerance for religious tolerance if that religious tolerance included acceptance of Catholics.

What kept James II-VII on his throne was the knowledge that eventually his Protestant daughter, Princess Mary, would succeed him. Mary was married to her first cousin Prince Willem III of Orange, who was next in line to the throne after Mary and her sister, Princess Anne. Prince Willem III of Orange was the Stadholder of the Netherlands and the son of Willem II of Orange and his wife, Princess Mary of England and Scotland, daughter of Charles I of England and Scotland. Willem II was in constant battle with the Catholic King of France, Louis XIV, who also happened to be the first cousin to King James II-VII.

In 1673 as the Duke of York, James married his second wife, Mary Beatrice d’Este of Modena, the elder child of Alfonso IV, Duke of Modena, and his wife, Laura Martinozzi. The new Duchess of York was a devout Catholic and numerous pregnancies ended in either miscarriages or sickly children that did not live long which seemed to assure a Protestant succession. However, after James came to the throne Mary-Beatrice delivered a healthy son, Prince James Francis Edward, shortly thereafter created Prince of Wales. This solidified the fact that the successor to James II-VII would be another Catholic king. This was not acceptable to many people including Parliament and Prince Willem III of Orange himself who was considerably anti-Catholic and did not want to see his wife’s chance on the throne (and his) slip away.

It is interesting to note that historians greatly debate whether or not the birth of a Catholic Prince of Wales was the reason for James being overthrown. The truth it seems is that James was so unpopular that Willem III of Orange was planning to invade England prior to the birth of the Catholic heir. Willem did not want to be seen as an invader and therefore asked members of Parliament to conduct an act of treason by inviting him to come to England and take the throne. When seven brave members of Parliament achieved this honor, Willem began assembling his fleet and waited for the right moment to invade. When France was engaged in a battle in Germany Willem sailed his fleet to England and came ashore on 5/15 November 1688. James II-VII showed little resistance and on December 10, 1688 the king, queen and Prince of Wales fled to France.

With James II-VII now exiled in France Willem took control of the provisional government and called for a Conventional Parliament. His legal right to do so was questionable but this was a time of revolution. This new Parliament consisted of many loyal monarchists who had sat in Parliament under Charles II. The English Convention Parliament was very divided on the issue of who should wear the crown. The radical Whigs in the Lower House proposed to elect Willem as a king (meaning that his power would be derived from the people); the moderates wanted an acclamation of William and Mary together; the Tories wanted to make him regent only and acclaim Mary as Queen.

On January 28 a committee of the whole House of Commons promptly decided by acclamation that James II-VII had broken “the original contract” had “abdicated the government” and had left the throne “vacant.” The House of Lords rejected the wording of the acclimation and what followed were weeks of debate on the wording of the acclimation and who should be the monarch. Princess Anne, next-in-line after her sister, declared that she would temporarily waive her right to the crown should Mary die before William. Mary, for her part, refused to be made queen without William as king by her side, paving the way for the inevitable mounting of the throne of Willem III of Orange onto the English & Scottish thrones. The Lords on February 6 changed their minds and avoiding a possible civil war now accepted the words “abdication” and “vacancy.” in the House of Commons acclimation. On February 13, 1689 Willem III of Orange along with his wife were offered the Crown by Parliament and then became joint sovereigns as King William III and Queen Mary II of England and Scotland.

Parliament had decided the succession and the power to name the monarch and regulate the succession has been in their hands ever since. The next step was to limit the power of the Crown and this was through the establishment of the Bill of Rights which I will examine next week.